Split: Debate: Catholic Vs Non-Catholic Soteriology

[sapamarogi]

First a brief background. I was evangelical Protestant from childhood until age 47. I grew up in a Conference Baptist church under some of the most famous evangelicals in the U.S. (Evelyn Christenson, Gary Smalley, Irwin Lutzer, Bill Bright, etc.–these people were either on staff at our church or frequent guest speakers at our church).

I was extremely active in my churches, usually involved in something involving my church at least 5-6 days/nights per week.

So I know evangelical Protestantism well. That means, of course, that I know my Bible well. I’ve not only read and studied through the entire Bible many times, but also been involved in Bible studies all of my life, usually at least two-three per week.

Yet in spite of all this, I and my husband converted to Catholicism on April 10, 2004.

We are extremely joyful in our Church and love being Catholic Christians.

What I want to know is why Protestants try to convince Catholics that our “religion” is false and that we need to “become Christians?”

When I was Protestant, I never did this. I accepted Catholics as true Christians.

I read Jack T. Chick’s tracts about Catholicism and realized that they were fiction. I still liked a lot of the other Jack T. Chick tracts (Somebody Loves You is excellent.) But I didn’t go along with everything JTC said or wrote.

I read other Protestant apologies against Catholicism, and I never believed them. I knew Catholics and I knew that the stuff in those apologies wasn’t true.

I didn’t go after Catholics. If someone told me they were a Catholic, I would ask, “So you’re a Christian?” and if they said “yes,” I was cool with that. I didn’t try to talk them out of Catholicism and explain the “truth” of Protestantism.

If a Catholic didn’t know Jesus, THEN I would try to talk to them about their faith. But I didn’t try to persuade them to give up Catholicism, I just tried to persuade them to embrace the Jesus their Church proclaims.

From what I understand, the Rev. Billy Graham never tried to talk Catholics out of their church. Neither did Dr. Bill Bright (I know this from personal experience–when the “I Found It!” campaign was done in our city, three Catholic churches were part of it! Isn’t that nifty?!)

So why do YOU feel it is necessary to try to persuade Catholics that their Church is in error? Are you getting some kind of reward in heaven for this? Can’t you just accept Catholics as fellow Christians who practice their faith differently than you do and rejoice with them?

I personally think the devil must be laughing his head off. He is convincing Christians to witness to Catholics, who are fellow Christians, instead of pagans who are lost in their sins and don’t know Jesus. Tragic.

I was a Catholic for 23 years and knew Jesus was God but I was not saved. I had never read the Bible and did not know what Jesus had done for me on the cross. I heard Billy Graham preach the true gospel of my need to receive Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord and I did that 40 years ago. I began to read the Bible as a born again Christian and saw and began to understand the truth of what Jesus did for me. What Jesus did on the cross was pay our penalty, take our death and take us (our old nature) to death on the cross. He paid my price of separation from God and death because the wages of sin is death. So grace is given to those who receive the FREE gift of eternal life that is given to those who receive Him(into our hearts) as our Saviour and Lord. He paid the penalty and the gift is free to all who will receive it. RECEIVE JESUS! HE IS ETERNAL LIFE - ETERNAL LIFE IS A PERSON. He that has the Son has life, he that does not have the Son does not have life. I have eternal life because I have Jesus. He came into my life that day and has never left me. Ask Catholics if they are going to heaven and they don’t know because the Catholic Church is a church of works. We are saved by grace, and not of ourselves, it is the GIFT OF GOD, not of works lest any man boast. I know I am going to heaven - not on myself but on Jesus’ finished work - freely given. I have left the Catholic Church and I do say it does not preach the gospel of the Bible. Paul said: If they preach another gospel - let them be anathema! I love Catholics but the Catholic Church is deceiving them.
The Truth will set you free.
Sapamarogi - God’s Word is Truth, let God be true and everyman a liar.

 

[VociMike]

sapamarogi:

I was a Catholic for 23 years and knew Jesus was God but I was not saved. I had never read the Bible and did not know what Jesus had done for me on the cross…

Hmmm…

In those 23 years you would have gone to about 1300-1400 Masses (assuming you were an observant Catholic). Yet you never read the bible (did you read the missalettes – they have the scriptures in them also. Did you listen to the readings – those were scripture too)? You never heard what Jesus had done on the cross (not just for you, but for all) in 2800 New Testament readings, including 1400 gospel readings, or 1400 homilies?

 

[mozart-250]

I mean no offense here, please be clear on that. However, you have made an assumption that lessens both our dignities as children of God…

What is the assumption. I totally don’t get it.

The truth is that the promise was made to Peter. Peter is the first Bishop of Rome. The promise guarantees that it is impossible for him or for his successors to teach any error in the realm of Faith and Morals. God is Truth. There is no ‘insignificant’ error in Truth.

No…the promise states that the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Could you please tell me then how that equates to “it is impossible for him or his successors to teach any error in the realm of Faith and Morals”. It really sounds to me like two totally different sentences, unless my my reading comprehension skills are really lacking.

Let us just say that of course this interpretation is…um…shall I say not very intuitive to you. You, as a non-Catholic, possess some of the Truth, maybe even much of it, but you do not possess the Fullness of the Truth.

Hmm…if your Christianity is the “Fullness of Truth” and my Christianity is “not the Fullness of Truth”, then your Christianity is obviously superior to mine…

Now maybe this is idle speculation, but I suspect if I were claiming my Christianity were the Fullness of Truth and that yours is not, that you just perhaps might be be skeptical of my claims. I suspect that perhaps you would not buy into it just because some schmuck (me) over the internet claimed it was true. I suspect that just perhaps you might want me to produce a whole lot of evidence that yes indeed First Assembly is superior to the Catholic Church before swam across the Tiber in the opposite direction.

And you would have every right to want this evidence.

I am just acting towards your claims of superiority in the same way I would expect you would act towards me if the roles were reversed. I want solid evidence. Lineage is not enough. Showing how Protestantism is messed up is not enough (I know we are messed up…if there are any Catholics out there thinking of becoming any flavour of Protestant because they think we or one branch of us is the one true church…please don’t…you will become very quickly disillusioned). I just want you to convince me that yes you do possess the fullness of truth and your Christianity is superior to mine…

Otherwise I am apt to believe you are just as much as messed up as we are.

Actually it too bad that the sales pitch I constantly get is one that the Catholics are superior to us Protestants. If the claim were one of rough equality, I can come up with a very compelling reason for me to become Catholic. But since that is not the pitch that I am getting…umm…to bad.

And if I can quote my favorite Mel Brooks movie in reply to your “I’m just a heretic Protestant” comment: don’t get saucy with me Bernaise. I do not believe you are, nor have I ever called you, or our separated brothers and sisters, a heretic. It was unecessary for you to add that.

Oh I was not referring to you. I am just quoting this Catholic web site which lists my faith as a great heresy.

I do like to quote Catholic sources sometimes.

 

[maurin]

What is the assumption. I totally don’t get it.

No…the promise states that the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Could you please tell me then how that equates to “it is impossible for him or his successors to teach any error in the realm of Faith and Morals”. It really sounds to me like two totally different sentences, unless my my reading comprehension skills are really lacking.

Hmm…if your Christianity is the “Fullness of Truth” and my Christianity is “not the Fullness of Truth”, then your Christianity is obviously superior to mine…

Now maybe this is idle speculation, but I suspect if I were claiming my Christianity were the Fullness of Truth and that yours is not, that you just perhaps might be be skeptical of my claims. I suspect that perhaps you would not buy into it just because some schmuck (me) over the internet claimed it was true. I suspect that just perhaps you might want me to produce a whole lot of evidence that yes indeed First Assembly is superior to the Catholic Church before swam across the Tiber in the opposite direction.

And you would have every right to want this evidence.

I am just acting towards your claims of superiority in the same way I would expect you would act towards me if the roles were reversed. I want solid evidence. Lineage is not enough. Showing how Protestantism is messed up is not enough (I know we are messed up…if there are any Catholics out there thinking of becoming any flavour of Protestant because they think we or one branch of us is the one true church…please don’t…you will become very quickly disillusioned). I just want you to convince me that yes you do possess the fullness of truth and your Christianity is superior to mine…

Otherwise I am apt to believe you are just as much as messed up as we are.

Actually it too bad that the sales pitch I constantly get is one that the Catholics are superior to us Protestants. If the claim were one of rough equality, I can come up with a very compelling reason for me to become Catholic. But since that is not the pitch that I am getting…umm…to bad.

Oh I was not referring to you. I am just quoting this Catholic web site which lists my faith as a great heresy.

I do like to quote Catholic sources sometimes.

mozart250,

your link would be more impressive if you understood what it said in the light of the Church’s teachings. 'nuff said. I have no qualifications to heal the chip in your shoulder.

You have come to a Catholic web-site, and I suspect, fully aware of what the Church teaches in the case of Mt. 16. We can debate in the clouds, as you have above, or in substance. Your choice. For example, where did I say that Protestantism was “messed up?”

You equate ‘superior’ with ‘Fullness of Truth.’ You are incorrect. Because I do not know which of the 33,000 denominations you follow, it is not easy to address exactly what I mean.

But, from what I understand, all 33,000 denominations teach sola Scriptura (except for LDS, they have the book of Mormon). sola Scriptura is a doctrine introduced by a fallible man 500 yrs ago. This man eschewed books that Christ and the Apostles read and taught from (there are more than 80 verses in the NT taken from the 7 books of the OT that Luther edited out of the Canon). He denied the Oral Apostolic Tradition which preceded the Written Tradition.

From what I understand, all 33,000 denominations ignore and eschew his and the other reformers veneration of the Mother of God, based on a misinterpretation of the Scriptures alone, divorced from Apostolic Teaching.

Now, I do not deny the material sufficiency of Scripture. I have no doubts about your Salvation as a sincere and good Christian person. In this respect, being a good and sincere Protestant, or being a good and sincere Catholic will lead us both (let us hope it be His Will) to the Beatific Vision.

But the tradition you and other Protestants follow has eschewed even more than the original ‘reformers’ did.

Inferior? no. But you lack the fullness of that which all generations of Christians have had since Pentacost.

 

[mozart-250]

mozart250,
your link would be more impressive if you understood what it said in the light of the Church’s teachings. 'nuff said. I have no qualifications to heal the chip in your shoulder.

Oh…I don’t think I have a chip on my shoulder. Maybe a subtle sense of irony and a slightly sarcastic bent which I will plead guilty for having it get the better of me at times.

You have come to a Catholic web-site, and I suspect, fully aware of what the Church teaches in the case of Mt. 16. We can debate in the clouds, as you have above, or in substance. Your choice. For example, where did I say that Protestantism was “messed up?”

Oh you didn’t say we are messed up, I did. I say we are messed up (to some extent anyway). If you are unconvinced we are messed up, what is that saying about “airing dirty laundry”. If I were to start to do that, I am sure I could convince you we are messed up.

You equate ‘superior’ with ‘Fullness of Truth.’ You are incorrect. Because I do not know which of the 33,000 denominations you follow, it is not easy to address exactly what I mean.

I sympathize with you trying to keep up with all of the 9,345,873 denominations of Protestantism (here is my subtle sarcasm getting the better of me again). I would too if I were Catholic. So I will help you.

I attend an Assembly of God church. However, I do not consider myself a Pentecostal (I question parts of the theology) and am probably a conservative Methodist (which does not exist in my locale). I was born a Methodist, am an admirer of John Wesley, and in an ideal setting I might be a “Free Methodist” (how is that for narrowing it down to a small subset of Protestantism).

I am just trying to apply logic here. If I were to look impartially at two different religious systems and determined the first had the fullness of truth and the second did not, I would determine the first to be the superior one, wouldn’t you

But, from what I understand, all 33,000 denominations teach sola Scriptura (except for LDS, they have the book of Mormon). sola Scriptura is a doctrine introduced by a fallible man 500 yrs ago. This man eschewed books that Christ and the Apostles read and taught from (there are more than 80 verses in the NT taken from the 7 books of the OT that Luther edited out of the Canon). He denied the Oral Apostolic Tradition which preceded the Written Tradition.

You might be surprised, but I have never heard the term “sola scriptura” in my church. It is a title anyway, and titles can be misleading.

The canon is a separate issue that I am not sure how anyone can prove. I have really not studied it much.

You might be surprised, but on a number of levels I am not a big fan of Luther. And I would not deny oral apostolic tradition, I just have no way that I can identify with any degree of certainty apostolic tradition aside from the written word of God.

From what I understand, all 33,000 denominations ignore and eschew his and the other reformers veneration of the Mother of God, based on a misinterpretation of the Scriptures alone, divorced from Apostolic Teaching.

Oh I am sure that the Mother of God was a wonderful Christian that I am sure I can learn many lessons from (as I can from many wonderful saints through history). In the end however, she is mortal, not Deity. And there are limits to how much I can venerate (whatever that means) any mortal.

Now, I do not deny the material sufficiency of Scripture. I have no doubts about your Salvation as a sincere and good Christian person. In this respect, being a good and sincere Protestant, or being a good and sincere Catholic will lead us both (let us hope it be His Will) to the Beatific Vision.

Good. We agree then. I have no problem with the salvation of practicing Catholics who have faith in Christ for their salvation and exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in their lives.

You disagree with a small minority of Catholics who would question my salvation and I disagree with a small minority of Protestants who might question the salvation of Catholics in general.

But the tradition you and other Protestants follow has eschewed even more than the original ‘reformers’ did.

Inferior? no. But you lack the fullness of that which all generations of Christians have had since Pentacost.

Again, my only issue with tradition is how you identify with certainty that it is apostolic versus something somebody made up.

And again, I would think a reasonable person would conclude that a faith that has the fullness of truth is superior to a faith that lacks the fullness of truth.

 

[apophasis]

whosebob:

Apophasis: "You could go out and buy it. Better yet, you tell me in your own words what you think your church teaches you must do to be saved.

Whosebob: I just did, in my response posted prior to this one.

Not exactly. You merely told me that you believe that if any man, whether a justified Bible-believing Christian or hedonistic pagan, sins gravely before his physical death, he would no longer have God dwelling in his soul (when did a pagan ever have God dwelling in his soul?). But you have not told me how, according to your understanding of RC teaching, an unsaved person initially enters into salvation (a saved state).

Based on what you’ve stated above you believe that no one, this side of physical death, has, nor ever can have, assurance of salvation because sin is still the determining factor. But then what did Paul mean when he wrote to the Colossians?Col. 2:13-14 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."Now it seems to me, in Biblical soteriology the cross of Christ is the determining factor, not one’s ability to continually avoid sin.

1696 The way of Christ “leads to life”; a contrary way “leads to destruction.” The Gospel parable of the two ways remains ever present in the catechesis of the Church; it shows the importance of moral decisions for our salvation: “There are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; but between the two, there is a great difference.”[21]

So then am I to assume that you believe salvation is attained through one’s ability to always make correct “moral decisions?”

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (Jn. 14:6). When He says, “I am the way,” I don’t believe He was referring to Himself as being our example of making “moral decisions” for salvation. But instead to the cross by which He accomplished full redemption for all who believe (cf. Jn. 3:14-18).

 

[apophasis]

Apophasis,

You clearly misunderstand what it means to be Catholic.

Ok, then maybe you can clear some things up for me by responding to my post #52.

 

[sandusky]

Hi Michael; that is a beautiful website that you’ve put together!

whosebob:

Sandusky, I enjoyed reading your post and the quotes you provided; please provide in your own words and also with documentation “the CC’s answer to the question: What must I do to be saved?”

In the CC you are saved initially by grace through faith; subsequently, that salvation is passed off to you and you are ultimately saved by your works:

Council of Trent, Sixth Session:

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

And from your post #17 above:

BUT following upon his initial justification (for example, following upon Baptism), it is unbiblical to hold that nothing else on the part of the believer is involved in the working out of his salvation-justification-sanctification. St. James settled that question in his letter: You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:22-24) [emphasis mine]

Yours is a works/righteousness salvation—you are saved by your works.

 

[Mickey]

In the CC… you are ultimately saved by your works:

Poppycock! Please spare us your false accusations.

 

[sara888]

** Hi Sandusky,

If Protestants and Catholics believe commandments or works are essential to Faith, since one cannot have faith without commandment keeping.,how is it that you claim works have nothing to do with a Christians salvation.???

If works are essential to ones Faith, and we are being judged on Faith which includes works, how can you seperate them or claim they have nothing to do with our judgment or Salvation…???

Angel Jan ( now sara888)**

 

[sara888]

Not exactly. You merely told me that you believe that if any man, whether a justified Bible-believing Christian or hedonistic pagan, sins gravely before his physical death, he would no longer have God dwelling in his soul (when did a pagan ever have God dwelling in his soul?). But you have not told me how, according to your understanding of RC teaching, an unsaved person initially enters into salvation (a saved state).

Based on what you’ve stated above you believe that no one, this side of physical death, has, nor ever can have, assurance of salvation because sin is still the determining factor. But then what did Paul mean when he wrote to the Colossians?Col. 2:13-14 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."Now it seems to me, in Biblical soteriology the cross of Christ is the determining factor, not one’s ability to continually avoid sin.So then am I to assume that you believe salvation is attained through one’s ability to always make correct “moral decisions?”

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (Jn. 14:6). When He says, “I am the way,” I don’t believe He was referring to Himself as being our example of making “moral decisions” for salvation. But instead to the cross by which He accomplished full redemption for all who believe (cf. Jn. 3:14-18).

** Hi Apop, You dont get it.!

If commandment keeping is essential to a Christians Faith, and we cannot have Faith without commandment keeping, then how do you possibly see us being judged on just Faith in Christ.

What is Faith… What does it mean to have Faith… you fail to define real faith in Christ.

Faith means to believe and obey … Christ gave us the whole NT on Faith and Commandment keeping since works are essential to ones Faith… Christ spoke more about Hell and who goes there with regard to disobedience .

You must understand , grasp and absorb what true faith really means in Christ… Again, if commandments are essential to Faith then we are being judged on Faith which includes WORKS.

Angel Jan…**

 

[maurin]

I attend an Assembly of God church. However, I do not consider myself a Pentecostal (I question parts of the theology) and am probably a conservative Methodist (which does not exist in my locale). I was born a Methodist, am an admirer of John Wesley, and in an ideal setting I might be a “Free Methodist” (how is that for narrowing it down to a small subset of Protestantism).I asked to make sure that I was speaking to someone who believed that Jesus is God. Thanks.

I am just trying to apply logic here. If I were to look impartially at two different religious systems and determined the first had the fullness of truth and the second did not, I would determine the first to be the superior one, wouldn’t youJesus is present in all churches that proclaim His Divinity, so no. His Presence is His Presence, whether it be in the Church He founded, or those churches that broke away. I do not believe that His Presence can be superior or inferior, whereever His Presence is.

You might be surprised, but I have never heard the term “sola scriptura” in my church. It is a title anyway, and titles can be misleading.

The canon is a separate issue that I am not sure how anyone can prove. I have really not studied it much.Heres a place to start studying

You might be surprised, but on a number of levels I am not a big fan of Luther. And I would not deny oral apostolic tradition, I just have no way that I can identify with any degree of certainty apostolic tradition aside from the written word of God.Here’s a good place to find Tradition

Here’s a good place to distinguish Tradition from tradition

read articles 74-84

Oh I am sure that the Mother of God was a wonderful Christian that I am sure I can learn many lessons from (as I can from many wonderful saints through history). In the end however, she is mortal, not Deity. And there are limits to how much I can venerate (whatever that means) any mortal.It is insulting to intimate that we regard Mary as Deity. Veneration=high level of respect.

Good. We agree then. I have no problem with the salvation of practicing Catholics who have faith in Christ for their salvation and exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in their lives.

You disagree with a small minority of Catholics who would question my salvation and I disagree with a small minority of Protestants who might question the salvation of Catholics in general.I cannot be responsible for a small minority of Catholics or Protestants. Those who believe that way do not, in my opinion, believe in either God’s Fatherhood, or His Mercy. That’s my opinion.

.

Dear mozart 250,

I have clearly misjudged both your intentions and your tone in previous posts and my responses to them. Please accept my sincere apology for having caused offense, and for not having better judgment. I have embarrassed myself, but worse, I have embarrassed you by publicly misjudging your intentions. May you accept my pleas for pardon, and my peace offering. I am truly sorry.

maurin

PS, in terms of the Canon of Scripture, if you would like to see the verses in the NT from the books of the OT that Luther edited out, you may go here

 

[maurin]

Ok, then maybe you can clear some things up for me by responding to my post #52.

Because you cut out the rest of my post to which your post #53 refers, I am not sure if your ignorance is vincible. This is not a slander, but an observation which means I do not think your mind is open enough to view the Church any differently from how you have been taught to view the Church. If you give me evidence to the contrary, I will attempt to explain things to you. Otherwise we will engage in folly.

 

[mozart-250]

Dear mozart 250,

I have clearly misjudged both your intentions and your tone in previous posts and my responses to them. Please accept my sincere apology for having caused offense, and for not having better judgment. I have embarrassed myself, but worse, I have embarrassed you by publicly misjudging your intentions. May you accept my pleas for pardon, and my peace offering. I am truly sorry.

maurin

PS, in terms of the Canon of Scripture, if you would like to see the verses in the NT from the books of the OT that Luther edited out, you may go here

Oh you have not embarassed me at all. But then again my wife says my lack of embarrassment is a fault of me…my constant atrocious choices of attire is constantly embarrassing her but doesn’t bother me in the least.

Anyway, the internet is not the best medium for communicating our thoughts and intents anyway.

Most definitely forgiven

 

[maurin]

Yours is a works/righteousness salvation—you are saved by your works.

Thank goodness that according to your understanding, ‘understanding’ is not a work. Otherwise, there would be no hope for you.

But seriously,

you do not understand what the Church teaches. We are saved by Grace. Period. Grace that allows us to have Faith, and Grace that allows us to give evidence of our faith by the works that we do.

Have you not read James 2:14-26, especially verse 26?

 

[maurin]

Oh you have not embarassed me at all. But then again my wife says my lack of embarrassment is a fault of me…my constant atrocious choices of attire is constantly embarrassing her but doesn’t bother me in the least.

Anyway, the internet is not the best medium for communicating our thoughts and intents anyway.

Most definitely forgiven

not to open up another can of worms, but let your wife know that her sufferings over your clothing choices, when united to Christ’s, is also salvific!!!

Thank you for your kindness. I appreciate it.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Hi Michael; that is a beautiful website that you’ve put together!In the CC you are saved initially by grace through faith; subsequently, that salvation is passed off to you and you are ultimately saved by your works:And from your post #17 above:

Yours is a works/righteousness salvation—you are saved by your works.
​

This opinion is a gross misrepresentation. Whether it by ignorance or malice of Christ and his Church, please stop trying to spread this unchristian representation of believes that you’ve really never understood to begin with.

Perhaps one day one day you will see the Truth. It is apparent from the message and the extreme bias that your trying to justify your man made traditions. Try to find another way that express opinions using a more of a christian attitude.

Thank you.​

 

[Writer]

This opinion is a gross misrepresentation. Whether it by ignorance or malice of Christ and his Church, please stop trying to spread this unchristian representation of believes that you’ve really never understood to begin with.

Perhaps one day one day you will see the Truth. It is apparent from the message and the extreme bias that your trying to justify your man made traditions. Try to find another way that express opinions using a more of a christian attitude.

Thank you.

Works are merely an evidence of that grace or faith within. While faith without works is dead, neither Catholics nor Protestants who understand their faith will declare that they are saved by their own works. How would this be possible?

 

[whosebob]

Not exactly. You merely told me that you believe that if any man, whether a justified Bible-believing Christian or hedonistic pagan, sins gravely before his physical death, he would no longer have God dwelling in his soul (when did a pagan ever have God dwelling in his soul?). But you have not told me how, according to your understanding of RC teaching, an unsaved person initially enters into salvation (a saved state).

JMJ + OBT​

First, thank you for replying – it had been nearly two days since I posted my replies, and I wondered if you had decided to drop the subject. I’ve kept you in my prayers, and I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will help us to understand one another’s perspectives more clearly, to the glory of God and that ultimately we might better understand what He has revealed to us in His Son.

Let me note quickly that it was clumsy phrasing on my part that suggested a pagan would have God dwelling within his soul. My point was that justified Christians and hedonistic pagans both have the capability (free will) to commit sins that offend God. My second point was that this freedom exists even in a justified Christian to such an extent that he can “undo” his justification – if he had God dwelling within his soul (which is what Catholics understand it means to be justified and sanctified) before his deliberate act of grave disobedience (i.e. a “mortal sin”), then that is no longer the case afterwards. But I see, by the rest of your reply, that you understood my point, though I apologize for any confusion.

My statement about sin and the quotes from the Catechism were not provided in direct response to your request that I should explain in my own words the Catholic teaching on salvation. I had made that post first, and then noted your later reply and request, and decided to just point to my previous post as a way to answer your request; but thank you for reminding me to try and explain it in my own words, which I will do now.

Here is a text from the Acts of the Apostles that provides the basic framework for the “RC teaching [as to how] an unsaved person initially enters into salvation (a saved state)”:

[And Peter said] Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:36-38)

“Repent and be baptized.” To repent of one’s sins before God and before men, and to call upon the God of mercy in the name of His Son Jesus, is an act of faith which can only be made in God’s grace according to the working of the Holy Spirit within us; reason and conviction move in grace to a free act of faith and to reception of the gift of faith. That act of faith is consummated in a further act of faith, in reception of the Sacrament of Baptism and then the other Sacraments instituted by Our Lord. (Reception of the Sacraments is not “works” – to receive the Eucharist in Holy Communion, for example, is an act of faith and hope in Christ and His promises, in loving adoration of Our Lord and Savior.) That would be how a non-Christian adult initially enters into salvation-justification-sanctification, that is the Life of Grace in Jesus Christ, which is the same thing as Life in the Holy Spirit.

Life in the Holy Spirit fulfills the vocation of man. This life is made up of divine charity and human solidarity. It is graciously offered as salvation. (CCC 1699)

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

A more advanced treatment of the nature and role of the Sacraments in a believer’s life of faith, hope, and love – which life of course spans out beyond those particular moments when he participates in the rites of the Church – is beyond the scope of my post. Please see Part 2 of the Catechism for more information. Also see these fine articles in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: Sanctifying Grace, Actual Grace, Supernatural Adoption, Sacraments. Please don’t rely solely on what Lutzer or another third party has (mis)understood the Church to teach; remember too that any text taken out of context is highly prone to being misconstrued, so quotes from Trent and other sources need to be understood in the larger framework of the whole of Catholic teaching and theology, not just in an artificial construct of “canon/paragraph XX versus Bible chapter:verse,” which comparison-contrast my involve many underlying assumption, e.g. a Calvinist or Lutheran theology of grace.

Based on what you’ve stated above you believe that no one, this side of physical death, has, nor ever can have, assurance of salvation because sin is still the determining factor.

We can have perfect assurance that Christ will be faithful according to His promises, i.e. faith and hope in Christ can grow towards perfection during our lives on Earth. We can be sure that God will give us whatever grace we need to overcome whatever temptations and trials we face. But we always remain free to commit sins, even grave ones that sever us from a life of sanctifying grace. We must pray then for graces of perseverance, for the strength to exercise those virtues and our freedom such that in faith we will live in a manner pleasing to God. If we fail and do commit mortal sin, then we must entrust ourselves to God’s mercy, and ask for the graces of repentance needed to re-unite us with God in Christ. The Catholic teaching is that such an act of repentance and faith, towards restoration in Christ following post-Baptismal grave sins, is consummated with an act of faith in reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (a.k.a “of Confession” and “of Penance”).

So the long and short of it is that a man can have perfect assurance of God’s mercy in Christ, provided he asks for it and doesn’t presume upon it; but he can also be sure that God won’t prevent him from freely committing a serious sin that could result in his damnation should he die unrepentant of that sin, in which case God has not been unfaithful to him but rather he has been unfaithful to God, for it is sure that God would have offered to him those graces of repentance before his death though the man can freely refuse them.

Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21 [RSV])

A Christian is free to commit any of those sins and so to not inherit the kingdom of God should he not repent before the end of his life on Earth.

(continued below)